Time’s Up

As a 35 year old rapidly approaching 36 year old unmarried female, it’s makes me cringe to see how snarky guys view the average chick in my demographic.

I hope I don’t have the arrogance attributed to my age group. Perhaps I do about my youthful looks, but then again I have lived cleaned and never been a sun worshipping, druggy slut. I’m different than the average modern day American/Western female.

I genuinely like most men and feel sympathy for them that women CAN be so difficult. I enjoy being feminine and girly and only go thru random periods of wanting to achieve a lot. Pretty happy just being alive. lol

I don’t give it up and am closer to being a virgin based on my limited picky dating habits.

Sure, I would have loved to be married since my 20s, but feel happy I wasn’t like a huge majority of women who rush to get married. If anything, I believe in romantic love too strongly and held on at times when I should’ve let go.

So not every woman in her 30s is a shrill she-devil harpy who wants be your own personal succubus and suck your life force and rape your wallet.

I have 3 very nice guy friends just got engaged over last few months. (Aged 30-39). They didn’t hold these dogmatic views towards women. They moved things ahead in a linear manner and were open to love and hopeful about marriage and kids.

They all met healthy, nice cool chicks in the same age range and got engaged within 1-3 years.

Again, this blog has been an entertaining read, but I take it as seriously as any other entertainment rag out there.
With a grain of salt.

It will excite R. to know that he has many devout acolytes at this point. Ironically, this site is encouraging blind following by unhappy betas instead of grooming strong well adjusted true Alphas.

I’m sure Kate Bolick is crying bitter tears for you as she counts all the licensing and advertising money she’s earning from pandering to your demographic on TV and in The Atlantic.

The difference between contemporary men’s gender doctrines and those of women’s is that women’s tends toward the ultimate end of marriage or at least an LTR commitment. This is the idealized hypergamic goal state; single monogamous union with the best available mating option in terms of breeding and long term provisioning (i.e. pluralistic sexual strategy). Men on the other hand are biologically predisposed to mating with the best available short term option(s) based on physicality and sexual availability. It’s not that men don’t want an idealized monogamy, but our sexual imperative has to be sublimated in order to achieve it.

Between the sexes, these are conflicting breeding methodologies. For one sex to fulfill it’s methodology the other must rescind their own. Thus, in order for one gender to maintain a social dominance in terms of breeding methodologies, the other must be characterized in the negative. This is why men’s polygyny is socially vilified while women’s hypergamy is the accepted norm. Men are then socially predisposed to accept women not only as the sexual filters of society, but the rules makers and the arbiters of that same social and moral acceptability.

Your indignation at this blog or the community on whole is due in large part to this social framework. You see the summation of dating, Game, romance, etc. resulting in the finality of an idealized, hypergamously perfected marriage (the female imperative). The inner conflict you and most women in your demographic have is that the same hypergamy you hope to perfect has become the source of your worst frustrations. The constant, feminine primary entitlements women have been conditioned to expect from idealized Men becomes the means of their worst disillusionments.

The hope was to assert the dominance of the feminine breeding strategy by conditioning and shaming Men into the internalized belief that it was their moral / social responsibility to accommodate the female methodology at the sacrifice of his own. Marriage is the RIGHT thing to do, so sayeth the gate keepers of sexuality, but only on women’s terms and when it conveniently fits into their life’s schedule. Only now that social convention based on feminine hypergamy is running headlong into the realities of biomechanics.

You see, while you may in fact still be sexually attractive at 35, the simple truth is that you are not as attractive as the next generation of 22 year olds arriving on the sexual market every year. Today’s hotties are tomorrow’s clearance rack items. With each passing year you become progressively less able to compete with the newer younger and hotter women becoming available. So, in order to counter this, women are forced to create new social conventions, new gender definitions, etc. in an attempt to level the playing field. Thus we get social dictums celebrating cougars, and myths of women’s new sexual prime (38 to 40? shocking).

Feminization’s worst failings aren’t due to Men awakening (and reacting) to this fresh understanding of feminine primary social dynamics – feminization’s worse fear is women finally acknowledging that hypergamy is painting them into corner within their own social constructs. The hope is to cash out their hypergamous chips before an individual male becomes aware enough to see the Matrix for what it is. Your 3 just-married friends may have managed to pull that off, but not you. And it’s not blogs like this that are hindering that, it’s the inherent flaws built into a feminine primary social structure long ago.

‘I wasn’t like a huge majority of women who rush to get married. If anything, I believe in romantic love too strongly and held on at times when I should’ve let go.’

— I was waiting for Tom Brady to come and rescue me.

‘I have lived cleaned and never been a sun worshipping, druggy slut. I’m different than the average modern day American/Western female.’

–I’m different than those sluts, I was so hypergamous that no would do because I’m a princess and didn’t whore around wasting away the value of my youth.

‘I have 3 very nice guy friends just got engaged over last few months. (Aged 30-39). They didn’t hold these dogmatic views towards women. They moved things ahead in a linear manner and were open to love and hopeful about marriage and kids.’

— I have three desperate horny beta males that finally ended their drought of sexual frustration. They married washed up women and now are very happy until they have their balls in a vice and get divorced raped because they still are beta males that are pussies.

So… Essentially, her letter begins with of several paragraphs of NAWALT, followed by extolling the virtues of marrying a 35-year old, followed by some shaming. Some slight reading in the manosphere will allow anyone to immediately see the dumbassedness of the letter.

Rollo,
I am undeniably a rAFC trying to swallow the red pill. My “morpheus” (to borrow from the matrix analogy some more) recommended your blog as a good start to unplugging. Reading this latest post I am once again starting to wonder about certain aspects of female game.
I get that women’s hypergamy will drive them to seek the best partner they can possibly attract. What I was wondering about is whether or not they take any proactive role in finding that best possiblity. Looking around at my own environment I notice that I rarely if ever see a woman making an approach (I can’t remember the last time, if ever). Have you ever run into this or heard about it? Or is the tired internet trope of “women just want you to know they’re interested. It’s up to you to work it out.” true?
Thinking about it I can see how a woman who believes she is higher value than one of suitors will not need to take action short of preserving her own SMV, but how does the other sex try to Game a higher value target?
All of this stems from the deeper questions of how do women percieve our attraction to them? How are they trying to influence our decisions on an individual level? Do they rely entirely on the social conventions established by the feminine imperative? I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

Her hamster may send off the tingles, but her forebrain says “I can’t do that, I don’t want to look like a slut!”

Still, women have way more tells than masculine men do — their body language generally doesn’t lie. If her body is aimed at you, if she makes eye contact more than once, if she has that coy smile when you lock eyes on her, what more do you need from her?

So the message is: women will rely exclusively on social conventions. They will assume that any man that does not respond to their IOIs is simply beyond the reach of their hypergamy or is a beta who has failed her first shit test (are you man enough to approach me?). Or am I missing something? And if I’m not: don’t women try to move the upper bound of their hypergamy in any way? Are they reliant on higher value beta’s like the one Rollo describes in his post “Balancing Sexual Pluralism”, who are apparantly unaware of their own SMV?

A woman of still ripe sexual value can and SHOULD raise her standards as high as she can go.

If women were taught that aging is terrible for them and they definitely have a peak period for marriage-worthiness, they should be settling down during that peak, and only settling down with high status males.

I wouldn’t say a woman’s dual-minded nature is a social convention, I think it’s natural from a hormonal perspective. I also believe that low-T high-E males exhibit dual-mindedness (“nice guys are manipulative”) and that high-T women are NOT as dual-minded.

The social conventions creep into what her forebrain is telling her she needs, so you have to be aware of that. If she’s really into reality TV or some feminist type show, you have to be careful because the dichotomy between hamster and forebrain will be fierce.

“I have 3 very nice guy friends just got engaged over last few months. (Aged 30-39). They didn’t hold these dogmatic views towards women. They moved things ahead in a linear manner and were open to love and hopeful about marriage and kids. They all met healthy, nice cool chicks in the same age range and got engaged within 1-3 years.”

I was thinking “poor betas”, but at least they’ll have a wet hole to put it in for a few years before she snaps it shut after 2 kids and divorce rapes them.

Read the book called “The Definetive Book of Body Language”. You can download the free pdf of it. There’s a chapter that tells you everything to look for when a woman is interested with you through her body language. Very rarely will she say it verbally…but she will say it through her body.

Dilated pupils (the best tell if you have good eye contact with her), smiling, mirroring, playing with the hair, touching, showing her palms, giggling, fidgeting…are all tells.

“I don’t give it up and am closer to being a virgin based on my limited picky dating habits.”

– How is she CLOSER TO BEING a virgin ? either you’ve had sex or you haven’t,
but this is an older woman we’re talking about so…

“I have 3 very nice guy friends just got engaged over last few months. (Aged 30-39). They didn’t hold these dogmatic views towards women. They moved things ahead in a linear manner and were open to love and hopeful about marriage and kids.”

– Funny how everytime i hear about being open to relationships, it’s define as having no judgement on woman and being blind to the world around you.
Just close your eyes and everything will be fine.

“Again, this blog has been an entertaining read, but I take it as seriously as any other entertainment rag out there.
With a grain of salt.”

– Like with any forum of discussion when what’s being discussed triggers a negative emotion in the listener/reader they quickly so about discrediting the source.

Women absolutely will approach you if they consider you sufficiently worthwhile. This probably (hopefully) happens to fellows here routinely, the women are just invisible to them so they don’t recognize it.

Examples:

Fat chick – does the approach
Cougary chick – does the approach
Early 40s still lookin ok just early 40s – does the approach
Married chick – does the approach
Divorced, 1 or 2 kids, kinda hot – does the approach

On account of various obvious factors, all of these women are shunted 2-6 notches down the SMV in the SMP – they could have peaks at 7-10 when 22-26, but are 3 – 6 now on account of aforesaid factors, and so even if they are hot (i.e.: 40s and in good shape, or married and hot, or divorced w/ kids, and hot), they are still lower-value SMP.

Basically … I see approaches from these kinds all the time. Like near flippin daily really.

Plus – if you do a very strong DHV – then even 9s will approach, sometimes in the most incredible ways, happened to me 2 weeks ago. And by approach … shit man you shoulda seen it. A classy 10 would probably require a rock-star quality DHV to do that though, but you could still see it happening. Minimally a 10 will be highly receptive to any reach-out of any kind from rockstar.

Here’s the issue – and I’d like to see Rollo do an article on this … I think if you are a fellow, say a 7, then 6s make approaches easy for you and 5s on down will routinely approach you. But 7s make it hard for you and 8s, while only only subjectively and possibily incorrectly self-positioned as a notch above you (i.e.: if by appearance you are 7, but by appearance + income + career, you are 9 due to status) … the 8s, since they ***think*** you are a 7, and they have their eyes on 9s and 10s … they seriously behave like they are 100 ladder rungs above you.

Visualize a ladder with 100 rungs. You are at run 70. Tightly grouped around you and grabbing at your ankles are women, 4s, 5s, 6s … you could be swimming in it if only the issues making them 4s to 6s (see list at start) weren’t a problem for you.

You look up. Just 10 rungs up from you is goodness. An 8, hot and hot enough, not fat, not old, no kids, no husband … all goodness.

You know she’s only 10 rungs ahead of you. You know if she knew your eyepopping income you’d be 10 ahead of her.

But for actual AFFECT in the SMP … she functions as is she is 100 rungs ahead of you.

That’s why guys think women never make the approach. It’s the ones we WANT that don’t approach.

Women do approach men, yes. Typically, in my experience and research, women with relatively high-T levels are the ones who approach, which leads to my hormonal theory that high-T individuals are the verbally initiating parties.

The thing is, I don’t know if high-T women are good relationship candidates. Are we talking ONS or are we talking LTR?

My best LTRs, the ones with NO drama, NO arguments, NO female dominance, always revolved around women who are hormonally balanced towards feminine endocrinology. They’re not aggressive creatures. I had to initiate with them, although their body language was LOUD and broadcasting to me to initiate.

When it comes down to a fuck buddy relationship (which I typically am not a big fan of), those women were always high-T aggressive confident types who opened me or chased me verbally.

I prefer stable low-drama LTRs than high drama unstable ONSs, but that’s my particular preference. 25 years of dating, I feel pretty confident I have it down to what I like to fuck and what I don’t.

@Dada …
Don’t get me wrong … the ones doing the approach are rarely the ones I find attractive. Just sayin’ I don’t rule out that women make approaches. Agree that usually the most desireable require a reach-out. Whether they stay desirable though is all in how they handle that reach out.

Actually, together with this blog, I would say a careful examination of who approaches me, how often and who I have to approach and how hard the latter expects me to work (not saying how hard I will work) … that has done more to help me “see” this matrix than anything else going.

Interesting how a 35 year old grown woman refers to herself as a ‘chick’. I see this often in older people that still behave like they are adolescents and have a tremendous lack of exposure to life and experience. Her last line, which takes a shot at readers here, is telling in that she now only has resentment towards men because none of them were ever good enough for her. This is only her frustration coming to the slow realization that her hypergamy got the better of her and less quality men are showing up at her front door.

Her reaction here is normal because there is a red pill for women that is harsh if hypergamy isn’t tamed past 30.

I just wanted to post to say thank you to the community, I think it might be a good idea to setup a section for people to post how game has changed their life. I started taking the red pill at age 24, before that I was a virgin, the sort that would happily do any favor for the women who would pat me on the head and say I would find someone (else). The sort of patheticness where I had a cartoon waifu and would occasionally cry myself to sleep from loneliness. I’m 26 now, I have learned so much and my life is so much better and I’ve only scratched the surface. Having sex with a beautiful woman does wonders to repairing a man’s ego and having had sex with multiple beautiful women brings the confidence necessary to project alpha. I’m currently in a effortless LTR with a cute girl who lives to please me and I’m very happy. I owe it all to the community so thank you to everyone here.

Mmm. I don’t usually white knight, but when I do it’s in defense of older women. I usually take the chance to defend older women just because one of my favorites was a woman 16 years older than myself. I was 19-20 and she was still good looking at 36, but pictures of her in her early 20s revealed that she used to be a first rate fox.

One thing about older women is that they’re usually much more pleasant to be around than younger girls. I think it’s because they’re grateful to have the attention of a young stud and they appreciate that he can make them feel sexy (relive their younger years). It could also be that they don’t really expect commitment from someone so young, so they don’t feel the need to try to change or control him. It’s very nice having that kind of laid back, non-possessive dynamic. I’d recommend that younger men give some older chicks a shot if they haven’t already, since it’s a very different experience from younger girls.

It will excite R. to know that he has many devout acolytes at this point. Ironically, this site is encouraging blind following by unhappy betas instead of grooming strong well adjusted true Alphas.

Rollo,

This here is why I believe you are one of the most attacked with the most attempts to discredit you and your writings. It is because I believe that you and your potential influence literally terrify many women. What you write if absorbed by too many, directly attacks the goal of achieving that female imperative.

“Again, this blog has been an entertaining read, but I take it as seriously as any other entertainment rag out there.
With a grain of salt.”

“It will excite R. to know that he has many devout acolytes at this point. Ironically, this site is encouraging blind following by unhappy betas instead of grooming strong well adjusted true Alphas.”

I would caution any female that reads this blog that I don’t take it as an “entertainment rag”.

To me, it is the Gospel According to Saint Rollo.

And I don’t doubt that men that read it feel the same way as I do.

So I warn her that even in reading her dismissal and the wording of it, I can see Hamster footprints all over it. And now, in almost every fucking word that comes out a woman’s mouth today, I can listen and interpret in a whole different light then how I used to before I found the Rational Male.

Also, I would also tell her that my happiness quotient has gone up immeasurably since finding this blog. I am far further along in becoming a well adjusted alpha than I ever was by listening to the rest of the world and how they defined what a Real Man should be.

First, the things that are written on this blog work for me personally and I assume for the other readers.

Second, I know now that what I experienced in my life and things I viewed were not unique to me, that I am no weirdo loser because I experienced what I did and what I came to see and believe about women.

I’ll admit I came to this blog in such a mindset that I was open to what was written here and it really hasn’t changed my mind, only explained and quantified what I saw, and gave me a better set of words to use in explaining those things.

So whether she accepts this blog or not, and whether or not she thinks it is important, I fucking do.

Older women’s rationalization is insane, I had an old ‘friend’ who just hit 30, she was a raging feminist slut, like fucking guys multiple times for cocaine money, and now seems to have hit the wall and decides she ‘just wasnt mature back then, and wants to find a mature guy now’.

@ Case and Dada
Thank you for the discussion. It really gave me food for thought on intergender relationships. I think I need to let your views sink in for a while but I will keep your words in mind when I head out into the field.

LOL. Rollo you’ve previously written that ” women’s Sexual Market Value is without doubt the most discussed topic in the manosphere. Try as we may, convincing a woman that her sexual peak lay actually between 18 and 25 is always an effort in debating denial. For all the self-convincing attempts to redefine sexual valuation to the contrary, SMV for women is ultimately decided by Men”.

“Sure, I would have loved to be married since my 20s, but feel happy I wasn’t like a huge majority of women who rush to get married. If anything, I believe in romantic love too strongly and held on at times when I should’ve let go.”

What I find hard to believe is that this women didn’t come across one man good enough to marry. What’s sad is that she probably did come across many good decent men that would have been good husbands and fathers but likely viewed them as not being of greater status than herself. It’s true; hypergamy doesn’t care about anything than meeting its base needs.

It all comes down to a matter of perspective or in this case her natural hypergamous tendencies which blinded her to the many opportunities around her. That’s all on her.

“I’ve never met a woman who claimed to look younger than her age to actually look younger than their age.”

@xplat You know, I tried microdermabrasion over the summer and, obviously nothing gets rid of wrinkles, but I feel like I look better than I did the months prior. Its a pretty cool thing. I don’t lie about my age though.

@jarl: There’s a benefit for women attracted to younger men, too. They have the motivation to really take care of their looks. I know of a couple older women with younger men and they look great- all thanks to dread.

A) A pet peeve of mine that whenever women try to debate an idea, they always start talking about their own personal life. Its just another way to gain attention.

Guess what lady, your personal story is irrelevant to the bigger idea being discussed. You are probably lying and even if you weren’t, we are not here to talk about you.

B) Any woman who tells you she is voluntarily unmarried is probably lying to herself and you. Its easy being “picky” when you aren’t getting picked. Ask for her picture, have a brief chat with her and you will know why she is unmarried

@Harlequin – unfortunately because the majority of males are still blue pill, your average female doesn’t really need to approach because she will have beta orbiters in double digit figures. All she needs to do is change her facebook relationship status to ‘single’ or ‘it’s complicated’ and a whole swath of white knights and common beta orbiters will trip over themselves, trying to ply their beta game at her.

Since taking the red pill, beta orbiters stand out to me like those dead people stood out to that six year old kid in 6th Sense. And like Bruce Willis’s character in 6th Sense, most beta orbiters are oblivious to their situation.

What I find hard to believe is that this women didn’t come across one man good enough to marry. What’s sad is that she probably did come across many good decent men that would have been good husbands and fathers but likely viewed them as not being of greater status than herself. It’s true; hypergamy doesn’t care about anything than meeting its base needs.

Yes and no: because if it was all about “base needs” then she (and many other women) would go on and “settle” for decent (less titillating?) men.

Also “closer to a virgin” is a pretty amazing turn of phrase. Go hamster, go!

God save me from my own delusions. T.T I, for one, am so glad I stumbled across the manosphere – I am, at the least, more likely to catch my hamster than before. To the other female readers: stop taking it like a personal attack and start looking for ways to use this knowledge to understand yourself and your situation better.

“In order for one gender to maintain a social dominance in terms of breeding methodologies, the other must be characterized in the negative. This is why men’s polygyny is socially vilified while women’s hypergamy is the accepted norm.”
1. I am often confused by your terminology. What is a breeding methodology? Is it the study of breeding methods? Is it a system of breeding methods? What is a breeding method? I would appreciate if you could create a glossary that describes your terminology. I would actually love if you could create a glossary.

2. The presented reasoning is flawed. Why would men be interested in the same kind of breeding strategy? If men are only interested in short term mating, why did pair bonding appear in the first place? For many men hypergamously perfected marriage would be the best outcome because they cannot guard multiple women. Some women might benefit from polygyny.

3. How is hypergamy vs. polygyny a valid dichotomy? Secretive polyandry (female infidelity) is also not accepted.

One of the very signs the man is still plugged balls deep in the matrix is his effort to EXPLAIN anything to women. Women are NOT our equals. They are not receptive to logic, ideas, words. They are receptive to matter – our bodies, our dicks, status and power, dominance, strenght, aggresivity, while these things trogger automatic programs in them – acquisitive mode, “love”, anger, frustration, FEAR, etc.

If you want to actually communicate with women, you have to communicate with their CORE.

Even if we don’t rewrite it, women expecting men to be welcoming and friendly after 20+ years of rejection (say 15 to 35+) by the same women and their sistehs, while the same sistehs were banging their pussies into nuclear waste mines, requires a whole colony of hamsters on russian steroids.

It is not that the banging away is bad by itself, it is the “Now I have a new life, I am ready for commitment, commit” attitude. I don’t think these “snarky men” would have a big problem with a “you want to get your dick glow for free, no strings attached?” offer. Then it is simple, Get the glow and walk, or just walk. Problem arises when “Pay for the whole maintenance of the nuclear waste mine, which can blow up in your face at any time, agree too accept your input now and then, because every kind of waste matter, from every kind of producer, at every possible circumstance has already been deposited, all seen all done, only thing missing is a maintenance financier.

Gregg has put his finger on a major shift in relationship attitude here.

I hear many guys say things like “I don’t want to be her Daddy”. Yes, it’s more common for men to prefer a relationship between peers, where the girl is treated as a partner.

I suggest that’s not the dynamic that women are built for. They settle into relationships with much more sustainable passion when the man is the leader. When he does act like her authority figure in her life – like her Daddy.

I understand that most men don’t want the responsibility.

The type of person who would and could strike a woman who is misbehaving as a last effective resort to correct her extreme bad behavior (a single open handed slap as per the Sean Connery video explanation in his interview with Barbara Walters) is the type of guy who has internalized in himself the attitude of being the man in charge, the authority figure, the king of his castle who doesn’t take shit, and who OWNS his woman.

He isn’t a man on a mutual journey with a woman, the woman attaches herself to him, and out of that freely giving over of her will, he owns and controls her. She belongs to him.

This is a very major shift in attitude. It’s not the only way to have relationships, obviously, as most men don’t do this.

Golly gosh, that lady needs to do some reading in the spinstersphere. She doesn’t understand how difficult it become for women to find husbands in their late thirties to forties. She needs to read The Bitter Babe’s blog for a while to see the reality of the situation.

Also, if she’s “closer to being a virgin” in her mid- to late- thirties, she’s likely either very overweight or frigid. Even Christian women are sexually active by then.

1. I am often confused by your terminology. What is a breeding methodology?

Read through my writing a bit more. Each sex has an individualized sexual strategy (polygyny for men, pluralistic hypergamy for women). When I refer to breeding methods or methodology these are the particular means by which each sex seeks to satisfy those strategies. These means can be social, behavioral and psychological schemas.

2. If men are only interested in short term mating, why did pair bonding appear in the first place? For many men hypergamously perfected marriage would be the best outcome because they cannot guard multiple women.

Hypergamously optimized, pair bonded monogamy is the other (long term) half of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, not a result of men’s sexual strategies. The disadvantages associated with ‘mate guarding’ multiple women is only expressed in men with a lessened capacity to breed more frequently than other men. You are correct in assuming hypergamously perfected marriage is the ideal situation, but only insofar as it pertains to a man’s capacity to breed with multiple women. IOW, monogamy is a more pragmatic breeding methodology for Beta men.

3. How is hypergamy vs. polygyny a valid dichotomy? Secretive polyandry (female infidelity) is also not accepted.

Hypergamy is based on qualitative criteria, Polygyny is based on quantitative criteria. Secretive polyandry may not be socially accepted (becoming more dubious by today’s social engineering), but it is still a common breeding method.

“You are correct in assuming hypergamously perfected marriage is the ideal situation, but only insofar as it pertains to a man’s capacity to breed with multiple women. IOW, monogamy is a more pragmatic breeding methodology for Beta men.”
This statement touches the main point I wanted to make. Hypergamously marriage is the ideal sexual strategy for women. It is also the pragmatic sexual strategy for women and beta men (IOW most men. Even alpha men do not stay on top forever.) Women and men are makers and the arbiters of this socially approved sexual strategy.

BTW, I agree with all of your other paragraphs in this post. It is also in the female Rational Reader’s interest to downplay and ignore the effect of the Wall, and to ignore or downplay the risk of the default social marriage conventions (the default divorce rules).

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Awhile back I was talking to a girl I know, and the subject of sex came up.

She’s in her mid 30’s, and was telling me about how she had remained single and turned down multiple marriage proposals in her 20’s because “it just didn’t feel right”. She also said that during her 20’s she wasn’t “mature” enough to have been able to handle a marriage.

Wouldn’t ya know, soon after she turned 30 she went out of town for work and had a weekend fling (which she regrets!) and upon returning home she “discovered” that her best friend male orbiter (who hadn’t had sex with a woman in years) was her soul mate. They moved in together and were married soon after.

The fact that she spent her prime years riding the cock carousel and giving up the goods for free was couched in the idea that she had finally matured, and the time she had spent “searching for the one” had eventually paid off when she stumbled upon her soul mate, who just happened to be right in front of her all along!

I wanted to explain to her that her new found “mental maturity” and finding her soul mate (did I mention that he was right in front of her all along?) was actually her hamster letting her know that she needs to hurry up and find a man who is willing to sponsor a woman who spent the prime years of her life squandering her SMV. I wanted to let her know that her hubby isn’t a “man who values sex so much that he is willing to go years and years without”, he is a low value male who lacked options and therefore failed to get any pussy for years on end. I wanted to tell her that it was pretty shitty of her to have squandered the best years of her life on “finding herself” while her future husband was in a sex drought for half a decade, just to trick him into footing the bill once she realized that the wall was right around the corner.

But of course I bit my tongue and let her ramble on about how there aren’t any good women in bars and that classy girls won’t think you are weird if you use a horrible pickup line and how “if you bide your time the right person will come along, when you are both ready for it to happen”.

Just goes to show that with women it needs to be less talking and more fucking, cause they really aren’t much good for anything else.

With the “End of Men” and other articles floating around today about how postscarcity society is favoring women more and more, they have failed to note that while women “no longer need” a man to provide her with the resources needed to survive, men also now have a lot more *time* to choose a woman.

For some “inexplicable reason” women like cock and women like having a family, and men are necessary for that, no matter how irrelevant they might become elsewhere. Men may indeed no longer be able to bang the hot chicks of today. But they can bang the hot chicks of tomorrow who, perhaps learning by example from the women born twenty years before them, will have a completely different attitude.

Is it me or do a lot of AFC’s who open their eyes begin to sound a bit bitter. What I’ve learnt from Rollo’s blog is that a lot of a woman’s behavior when it comes to mating is because of hypergamy, I don’t really see the need for all this ‘run hamster run’ stuff .I mean, many women are just acting acting biological cues when they’re at that age soo . . . Just saying, the way in which this post was finished sounded a bit unfair.

Obviously a woman wants a man that can cheat but won’t, but in all honesty it’s unlikely that a woman will pair with a man like this for a number of reasons, especially in today’s world where there are a vast amount of betas out there, and a woman’s biological setup doesn’t really allow for a lot of time to look for one (in comparison to a mans). Women are women, and from a lot of the comments I’ve read many people are being harsh simply because women are women.and will act and behave like women. These comments are sounding scandalous, what happen to the Pook days of learning to be a man, a successful one, and becoming the best you can be in order to attract the babes you want while getting the most out of life?

One thing you realize while growing older is that women really do “fall off the cliff”. It happens at a different age for every girl, but the decline is severe and dramatic. I’ve seen friends go from “pretty” to “old lady” within a year; and they *know* they’ve become invisible to men — all the quick glances and flirty interactions they’ve enjoyed since their teens instantly evaporate.

Some girls get fat and worn-out in the late twenties, others “still got it” going into their 40s. But despite “Sex In The City” propaganda that 45 year old actresses can still bang bartenders, it will eventually happen to almost every woman.

Chances are this woman was also “snarky” when she was 22; however back then she was young and (probably) hot so it didn’t really hurt her. Most guys will put up with a lot of shit from a girl, as long as the girl is hot and the sex is good.

It’s only when a woman approaches the wall and her looks start to fade that her “snarky” attitude starts to work against her.

@thebloggerssoliloquy,
Everyone knows men want something that is hot, young, tight. So much so that men spend their llives being socialized to sublimate their simian sub-programming and take female virtues into account that serve the purposes of the larger civilization, or even just of a long-term relationship where in general the female partner over time loses SMV more precipitously than the male.
At the same time, there are a thousand cultural tropes designed to conceal from everyone, men and women alike, that women too have simian subprograms, and they are every bit as vacuous and banal as men’s. This site stands out from others for unreservedly and unapologetically exposing those tropes.
We do not fault women for the simian ancestry that we share. We object to the fact that while we have been acculturated to sublimate our own natures, women are free to indulge in their own unexamined, and uncritiqued.
More importantly, now seeing with eyes wide open what the subprogramming is, we can’t unlearn the lesson. Fluent in English – and having read the Exorcist – you cannot unlearn English to forget the horror. Fluent in science, and having read The Origin of Species, you cannot observe a sea turtle and take Adam and Eve seriously, and less so those would do and who would presume to be your teacher and moral better, … fluent in evo-psychology, we cannot attend a wedding and experience it as we might have 10 years ago … people, a party, attraction, love, romance, a marrying couple, married couple, single people seeking out from among the many the one they love … no: with eyes open, with the glasses on that remove the tropes, the same wedding is a commodities exchange, and we are able to quickly and coldly price the commodities.
I hold out this hope. Having had children, I believe love is possible. I know that I totally and unreservedly love my children. I know it is at once a choice and also a burden upon which I have to draw deeply from my own finite set of internal and external resources. Knowing this, I know that I can love others and if I can, others can love too.
But as a force operating in the relations between men and women, in 2012, with eyes that can see, it gives me no joy to know it or say so, but love is at best a force which, having undergone mighty doses of chemo-therapy, is now in remission.

“At the same time, there are a thousand cultural tropes designed to conceal from everyone, men and women alike, that women too have simian subprograms, and they are every bit as vacuous and banal as men’s. This site stands out from others for unreservedly and unapologetically exposing those tropes.

We do not fault women for the simian ancestry that we share. We object to the fact that while we have been acculturated to sublimate our own natures, women are free to indulge in their own unexamined, and uncritiqued.”

A very fine statement, and you’ve pretty much answered me there. I fully understand and agree with your comment, and after what you said about the objection to the fact women are free to indulge in their own natures without criticism, it makes sense to me now that these less than friendly comments that I have read are aimed at this inequality.

I apologize if I came off a bit naive but I’m guessing many of the readers on this blog may be older than me and have come from a beta mind state for a long period, so their response to this awakening and, discovering that many things such as:

“a party, attraction, love, romance, a marrying couple, married couple, single people seeking out from among the many the one they love”

is actually a facade, and that marriage is “a commodities exchange” is bound to result in the phrases which I found a bit bitter.

But in all honesty I may only find it bitter as the ‘manosphere’ (or game, don juaning, etc) was revealed to me at a young age so I can only relate to the reason behind their responses in a limited form, but this blog does help me understand the feelings many men may go through once their eyes are opened, and they have escaped the deceit many people grew (and still are) growing up with.

* I also believe love is very much possible, as long as people understand that they will only get ‘true love’ from themselves and their own efforts (maybe Jesus too)

Like G–d Lo-ve doesn’t exist. It’s a trope. All of us Lothario’s; or maybe Romeo’s, perhaps Melmoth’s, or even Ba’al’zeb’u’ub’s; or Devil’s.

I was told last night I am both God and the Devil. It lured her into my bed, and drove her away from her own desire’s. Knowledge.

However when naive one can believe in it. One being a woman, or a man lying to himself.

I have turned away three different women in the last 24 hours, after they wandered into my bed, or I made my way into their’s, because of their apparent boyfriend. He never existed. So in turning them down, I simply was welcomed even further.

Without a doubt, the single most damaging thing to women is men talking, in large numbers, about their shared experience with women. That’s what makes the internet so dangerous and that’s why it’s so easy to see this woman’s thinly veiled contempt for this and similar blogs. Women like to sit on the sidelines and choose winners, but they don’t want the victors or the vanquished to talk about it.

“Without a doubt, the single most damaging thing to women is men talking, in large numbers, about their shared experience with women. That’s what makes the internet so dangerous and that’s why it’s so easy to see this woman’s thinly veiled contempt for this and similar blogs.Women like to sit on the sidelines and choose winners, but they don’t want the victors or the vanquished to talk about it.”

Gilligan’s comment is check mate. The whole deal. The entirety of animosity towards the manosphere. Women want to control the narrative.

And why don’t they want the victors and vanquished to talk? Because they still might need something from the vanquished (such as beta providership once the party is over), and the chances they’ll give it to the dimishes if the betas know what’s really going on. One commenter (Deti maybe) described what women want the best: That they want the feeling of danger/excitement with the risk of danger/excitement being removed; the thrill but the assurance it will all be okay in the end. By women keeping the average guy in the dark, they can live the excitement and know that they will have an average guy waiting for them on the back burner as a safety net (hence removing the risk).

Sit on the sidelnes and choose winners? You are correct about this to the max. The UFC has a large female following. Why? It is the quintessential “you and him fight” situation in the modern world. It plays directly into hypergamy, being a spectator and determining the winners. It’s the same reason “trying hard” is a sure way not to get laid. Women feel as if they should be able to determine if you’re a winner on their own, and trying to convince them you’re a winner indicates that you’re not in their minds.

In all honesty, with the exception of Stingray, if you give them enough time you start to see all the female commentators eventually try to take back the narrative, albeit in a “nicer” fashion than some of the feminists. This woman in the post is trying to do the same, with a splash of shaming.

Commenter gramps had one of the best comments on heartiste, and in it is the message that men can hear and women don’t want them hearing. It’s as follows (not verbatim, but close): “I think the true takeaway value from the manosphere is that while not everyone can be alpha, no one has to be a victim”. Women are meant to use men. It’s biology, don’t blame them for trying. Just look after yourself.

Gilligan’s comment is check mate. The whole deal. The entirety of animosity towards the manosphere. Women want to control the narrative.

And why don’t they want the victors and vanquished to talk? Because they still might need something from the vanquished (such as beta providership once the party is over), and the chances they’ll give it to the dimishes if the betas know what’s really going on.

Yes, very true! It is interesting. At least for now, I still participate and comment at Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart partly because I desire to represent the positive masculinist perspective on some of these issues. Gradually, over time the desire to control the narrative, and frame of discussion has increased inch by inch by inch by inch. The most recent moves involve essentially making the terms alpha and beta along with any discussions of female hypergamy off limits. I’ve been repeatedly told that I am too confrontational, adversarial, hostile, etc. which to me represents the idea that I must engage communication on essentially femcentric terms. You might ask why I am I even commenting and participating. For now, I still want to get my perspective across and I find the sort of meta-process stuff on how a blog discussion is controlled and framed to be interesting to watch as an active observer and participant.

I don`t get how Susan Walsh can call you confrontational in her style when she is VERY confrontational in her style when attacking you, other guys there, and ideas in the sphere. She is very hostile in a lot of her writing.

Mike C, underneath the pleasantries, advocates of the feminine imperative know that the basis of their ideology cannot hold up against critical review. Thus anything that challenges that ideology is considered confrontational, hostile or as evidence of the challenger’s past experiences making him biased against the imperative’s motives.

Your most cogent, well thought and thoroughly evidenced arguments will never persuade people who’s egos are invested in the feminine imperative. Sugar coating terms doesn’t change their meanings, so you’ll still come off as ‘adversarial’ whether or not you call Hypergamy “Hypergamy” or “Feminine Enlightened Self-Interest”. It’s not the terminology that offends, it’s the uncomfortable truth that it represents which offends.

A wholesale Masculine Awakening represents the ultimate threat to the dominance of the feminine imperative. At the end of the day Aunt Giggles is scared of this too, thus even put in the nicest of terms, anything you offer will be a challenge to feminine primacy.

underneath the pleasantries, advocates of the feminine imperative know that the basis of their ideology cannot hold up against critical review. Thus anything that challenges that ideology is considered confrontational, hostile or as evidence of the challenger’s past experiences making him biased against the imperative’s motives.

Well, yes and no. This is true but more than that. Due to solipsism, a disagreement of ideas is not perceived as a disagreement with ideas, but as a personal attack.

Mike C, underneath the pleasantries, advocates of the feminine imperative know that the basis of their ideology cannot hold up against critical review. Thus anything that challenges that ideology is considered confrontational, hostile or as evidence of the challenger’s past experiences making him biased against the imperative’s motives.

Your most cogent, well thought and thoroughly evidenced arguments will never persuade people who’s egos are invested in the feminine imperative.

Yes, I suspect you are right on this. I guess at one time I hoped/expected more.

On a different note, my sense is you review some of the studies out there so what is your view on this “restricted sociosexuality” versus “unrestricted sociosexuality” dichotomy. I never heard of this conceptual model until Susan introduced it recently. I’ve gone along with it for the purposes of debate, and I suspect there may be some truth to it, but that it is an oversimplification. It especially seems to be questionable when one maintains that many people will engage in casual sex that supposedly goes against their “true sociosexual orientation” for a hodgepodge of reasons.

Based on what you’ve seen, does this categorization have any validity?

But given the combination of the influence of social media, the difficulty of Game itself, and the dismal prospects of plugged-in and/or Beta men, it seems possible that not all, or even most, 40-yr old women, post-Wall women will be unable to get laid should they so desire it.

I want to pose the following question to see what you all think. I don’t have any friends in real life I can talk to about this kind of thing so its hard to get constructive feedback on ones observations.

This article brings up the two different sexual mating strategies in which one must prevail – in this case the womens. I don’t question this since it is the women at the onset which dictates how any relationship moves forward. However, with that in mind, we come to the male’s sexual strategy which is more ‘short’ term and can ( in some cases) be a driving factor as a relationship progresses past where a female has their control.

My observation is that a few of my guy friends are in what I call ‘half relationships’ with women. They have been with the same women for a while, but claim, at least to their close friends, that they want to get with other women. Howerver, actions speak louder than words, and it seems that they are just as vested in said relationship as the women is – they just don’t admit it. Thus my question is this – how pluralistic is a males sexual desire? It seems suppressed when one looks at how they act, but seems to still be a desire. Is this the feminine imperative at work? It seems to me that there is an innate desire by the male to maintain the relationship despite what they ‘say’.

Uhmmmm, I really wonder if that “female Rational Reader” is really a woman, or was that writing just crafted by the author himself/ a male/ a troll? Her “insight” seems soooo cliche. Well, I’m female (yeah, really) and I don’t mind the “red pill” at all. Always thought that way, actually. And what about >open marriage<? Makes life in our society so much more enjoyable. Both husband and wife can have some fun on the side (the husband can have the younger hot chicks and the wife can have some tasty men/adventures from time to time). Not every marriage has to be a prison. It's great to be with your loved one, but it shouldn't mean that you can't have your desires/biological needs satisfied :)

[…] written extensively on these phases so please have a read of my prior posts The Epiphany Phase, Time’s Up and Cashing Out for a more in-depth understanding of what to expect from women during this stage of […]